The Reporter has published my latest commentary on civil unions in Wisconsin, predictably bringing angry liberals out of the woodwork. It’s interesting to note how predictable, one-note, and disinterested in what’s actually said, these guys generally are, and it’s important for conservatives to know what logical fallacies, sleights of hand, and personal attacks to expect when stepping into the ring with a liberal.

Take, for instance, the assumption that religion plays a leading role in my opinion, despite never being mentioned. Liberal orthodoxy dictates that virtually no conservative opinion, especially on social issues, can possibly be held in good faith, so there must be an ulterior motive—in this case, hatred of gays and religious dogma. Liberal orthodoxy further dictates that the slightest hint of religion (real or otherwise) in an opinion or discussion is something to be feared and immediately disqualified from consideration.

The other main objection is that, without civil unions, gays are denied equal rights. I reject this premise entirely, for several reasons, the short version being just as I said in the article: “Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).” Moreover, I say “so-called rights” because most marriage benefits are not “rights” at all, but rather provisions offered as part of a contract.

I made clear that same-sex marriage was not the issue at dispute in my letter—the main topic was this measure’s constitutionality. However, you’ll find that same-sex marriage advocates tend to struggle with the concept of “staying on topic,” and will completely skip your argument, instead jumping straight to why you’re evil for not supporting gay marriage. If you refuse to let them change the subject and insist on staying on topic, you will be mischaracterized as either ducking the question or admitting defeat.

Regardless of whether or not you actually said anything demeaning towards homosexuals, no matter how much you insist you also want gay people to be able to visit their ailing partners in the hospital, you should still expect condescending lectures about how gays are people too, how homosexuality is predetermined (both propositions I accept, by the way…not that these armchair psychiatrists care), etc. You will be psychoanalyzed with utter certitude, your opinions attributed to fear, hatred, or ignorance. References to violence against gay Americans, black segregation, and even al-Qaeda will be thrown about with reckless abandon.

How do they know? They just do. They care, you don’t. Bigot.

Also be prepared for raw hatred & childishness, such as casual references to “half-baked turd[s] of imflammatory mush” (this gem, incidentally, is from the author of the Daily Kos entry linked above, and once responded, badly, to another of my letters, noteworthy for its hypocrisy: she claims she doesn’t “want to write in anger.”).

You may even have outright lies told about you, and you may see long-simmering grudges boil over—bravely aired behind veils of anonymity, naturally. “FDL54935” says:

Mr. Freiburger got his 15 seconds of fame since his parents went WAY overboard on a school issue. The man (Calvin) is one of the weakest writers in this community. If my sources are correct, he is barely making it through community college. I know times are tough and this is an issue that needs to be debated, but please limit editorials to those with an IQ over 75.

The issue to which our zip code refers is the case when a Fond du Lac High School teacher complained about my saying “God Bless America” over the school intercom, which the administration subsequently lied about.

Now, maybe Mr. Code was misled by news outlets that falsely reported my family was angry over the school’s speed in handling the matter, rather than their dishonesty. Maybe he’s been lied to by propagandists whose sham reporting completely distorts the incident. Then again, perhaps he’s the one doing the lying…after all, he’s angry enough about it to lie about my education, citing “sources” that probably don’t exist. The realschool I attend isn’t a community college, is nothing to sneeze at, and I think making Hillsdale’s Dean’s List for the second year in a row is a little better than “barely making it through.” (By the way, if you have the audacity to defend yourself by citing such facts, you can probably expect to be accused of bragging at some point, too.)

Hmm, it almost makes you wonder whether or not FDL54935’s got some kind of personal connection to the Fond du Lac School District…(crazy thought, I know. The educational community is much too professional for that sort of thing, right?)

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “The Liberal Playbook: Gay Marriage”

Take, for instance, the assumption that religion plays a leading role in my opinion, despite never being mentioned.

They do that so reflexively they don’t even realize it. One of my favorite things to do is call them out on it. Here’s my response regarding their criticisms of my views on oxymoronic “same sex marriage” (you can substitute abortion in here as well):

Here are some reasons the anti-religous bigotry argument fails.

1. That First Amendment thingy. We’re allowed to let our religious views inform our political views whether you like it or not.

2. My religion tells me that stealing, perjury and murder are also wrong. Do you object to me letting those views inform my political views, or just the views you don’t like?

3. Lots of churches are pro-gay all the way, such as the UCC and the Episcopals. I don’t recall you objecting to their advancement of the pro-gay cause. Shouldn’t their religious views be hidden from the public dialogue?

4. You are begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. You claim that we are denying “rights” to gays but you must change the definition of the word in question to draw that conclusion. But the debate is whether to change the word and give them a new right; you cheat and pretend that we’ve already changed the word and given them the right and then insist that we’re denying this existing right. Sadly, pro-gay apologists commit this fallacy so reflexively that I doubt you realize what you are doing.

5. Finally, and most importantly, I didn’t bring up religion. You did. I can argue this topic without it — though of course, if you want to know Jesus’ views on it I’ll be glad to share them with you.

"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1775

Email Subscription

Can't get enough Calvin? Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email!

The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, NewsRealBlog, Front Page Magazine, or any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with the aforementioned groups.